Nurse Sandie Peggie’s case against the RCN continues. Witnesses: Nurse Jennifer Melle, Nurse Bethany Hutchinson and Stuart Fraser, RCN Officer.
171 tweets
Good morning. Hope you all had a good weekend. Welcome to Day 4 of Peggie v RCN in Dundee. Today we will be hearing from Darlington nurse, Bethany Hutchison, Surrey nurse Jennifer Melle and RCN rep Stuart Fraser. These were the scenes outside court this morning…
Live tweets will follow when the hearing starts at 10am. Jennifer Melle is expected give evidence first. I am crowdfunding my work here. If you would like to make a small (ideally monthly) donation, the link is in the next tweet. Subscribers get the court reports first and…
… and exclusive newsletter. Once you are on board, whether you make a monthly or one off donation, you are on board and will get all my work going forward. Should you wish to, unsubscribing/cancelling your donation is easy. More info here:
genderblog.net/donate/
I'm told this morning's proceedings will be delayed as there is a case-management hearing, which gives me the opportunity to do a bit more housekeeping…
Firstly – everything I tweet is a SUMMARY and CHARACTERISATION of what is being said and happening in court. NOTHING is a direct quote unless it is in "direct quotes".
J – employment judge Melanie Sangster
JM Jennifer Melle – nurse
BH Bethany Hutchison – nurse
DH David Hay KC – advocate (Scottish name for barrister) for the RCN
NC Naomi Cunningham – Sandie Peggie's barrister
SF Stuart Fraser RCN witness (and Sandie Peggie rep)
I have also just been informed it is artist, photographer and Sandie Peggie supporter Bryndís Blackadder's 35th birthday today so I persuaded her outside for a souvenir portrait.
What else shall we do whilst we're waiting…. oh – here's the reports from the first three days of the tribunal:
genderblog.net/peggie-v-rcn-title-here/
I'll let you know when we get into court. Thanks very much to everyone who has supported my reporting of this court case to date. It was something of a punt, as there are quite a lot of costs involved, but it has been worthwhile as there's been a lot of significant detail – as
there always is – which has come out in court. I am sure that will ramp up over the next four days, as we have a run of RCN witnesses after Nurses Melle and Hutchison.
We are still waiting to go into court. In a new development this week, it looks as if the GovWifi service at the Dundee Employment Tribunal has blocked my website GenderBlog.net – people trying to access it in this building get this message:
If anyone is currently using the GovWifi service anywhere else in the country, could you let me know if you can get into GenderBlog.net ?
And if anyone knows how best I might get my website unblocked, please do let me know. It's an Adult website in that it's for grown-ups, but I don't think that's what it means…
[court is sitting]
[JM is being sworn in by the J]
J pls speak up and speak into the mic
NC good morning JM – I understand you're a practising nurse working for a trust in the SE of England and you were abused by a patient who was a convicted paedo and you used masc pronouns and you were suspended by the trust for doing so
J he was male, he was admitted to urology – he was very vile and v abusive when I used his male pronouns when discussing his discharge with a doctor. That's why I got into trouble.
NC did you know he wanted you to use female pronouns
JM I have no idea…
… he had a female name, and he was transgender, but he was 6' tall he'd come from a male prison and I didn't feel I could use female pronouns in front of the doctor
NC why not
JM he is male, and me being a nurse and my Christian values I would be deceiving myself if
I referred to him as a woman. I had no intention of upsetting him but I was discussing him away from his presence in a corridor and he overheard me.
NC being in trouble with your employer you got into contact with your union – what happened?
JM my employer wanted me to write a statement and send it to them immediately, but I wanted to contact my union first, so I contacted them but they took ages to come back to me. I was "anxious disturbed and traumatised" but no one got back to me
JM so in the end I wrote my statement myself and sent it in myself – the one "I wrote that awful night"
NC pls turn to p975 in the bundle
NC that should be an email starting "Hi Jennifer…" – what is this
JM when I received this email I was "very distorted and very confused and disappointed" that instead of calling me to their office or discussing the incident they told me to write a reflection on my practice
[this appears to be an email from the RCN]
NC had you had a face to face meeting with anyone by this stage
JM no
NC what did you understand from this advice?
JM that they did not take this incident seriously. They did not even thing of my disturbance and trauma of being threatened of losing a career at this point I was very shaken with the incident. It was "really not very supportive and not what I expected to hear from my union rep"
JM it felt more like a "punishment" and I was already going thorugh this awful situation and I need their help at this time.
NC what were the reflections you were being asked to make
JM "I suppose from my understanding they just wanted me to comply with the patient's wishes and
… not biological reality…. I believed the RCN instead were blaming for not complying with the patient pronouns"
NC if you look at the second last par of that email how do you the reading she advised?
JM I felt like a sense of being told off – being treated like a little child
NC what specifically was the reading she asked you to do
JM my statement on the incident of that night I believe
JM "they read my statement and they did not want to take this case on board. I believe that nobody wanted to volunteer to support me"
NC let's move on to 13 Oct 2025 – a meeting you had with the Christian Legal Centre and Nicola [?] from the RCN
JM we wanted to know why the RCN did not give me the legal supported I needed at the core of losing my career at a very diffcult situation and why I had been
referred to the NMC as a danger to the public, but the answer they would say is "no comment" but that they were "looking at the guidance and relying on the code of conduct"
NC could we go to p999.
JM this was a letter from the RCN to the Darlington Nurses – Bethany, the director of the Darlington Nursing…
NC and that refers back to the meeting you had with Nicola Ranger on 13 Oct. What do you recall about the way NR handled that meeting
JM she was not paying attn to the seriousness of this meeting and why we need to hear from the RCN. First of all when we asked why there was
no proper response as to why they couldn't support me in the most critical time of my life they just said no comment and then NR left the room. It just felt hopeless with the RCN then.
NC when did she leave the room?
JM after about 5 minutes – she said she had a call. She could not have taken it. I needed the RCN and needed to be supported by the RCN – "it was the most crucial time of my career being under investigation by the NMC. I was very shaken, having sleepless nights and having panic attacks – I was scared of even going out on my own. For Nicola to walk out and leave me devastated. I was very very sad"
[JM is getting upset]
NC how long did the meeting last after she left
JM it was just a few minutes afterwards
NC did she come back?
JM no
NC no further questions
DH Hello – I represent the RCN in these proceedings. I believe this meeting was on 13 Oct?
JM I believe so yeah I can't remember the exact date
DH now I think you contacted the RCN in early June of 2024
JM yes
DH does that sound right?
JM yeah by email
DH I think a doc might help us here – goes to p1215 – now we have an email with a log of contacts – your first contact with RCN – 5 June 2024 and that was an email?
DH so it says 5 June 2024 – received email… oh forgive me
JM that was after multiple conversations with RCN
DH forgive me – my mistake – lets got to p1214 and email from you to the RCN on 29 May 2024
DH your email at the top of this page…
JM yes that's after multiple
phone calls I made after the incident on 24 May
DH then you get a reply that asks you for some information and personal details – so that goes over to p1213
JM yes I believe I sent my statement before that. "I needed urgent help" and I spoke to multiple representatives
and I kept hearing someone would get back to me and they never did and I would have an appt and I would be waiting on the phone and someone would be in a meeting and I had been redeployed to another dept, so I said I wanted to come into the office
to see someone.
DH so you wanted a face to face meeting but you did have multiple calls with the RCN before then
JM year I did not fully discuss the issue I was told somebody would contact me and go to the office to make the statement but this was bing transferred from one
person to another.
DH on p1215 it appeas you had a telephone call with an RCN officer around 5 June and that led to an appt being made to speak to an officer on 7 June and we see that being confirmed here
JM yes on 7 June – I can't remember very much but I remember eventually
somebody phoned me and they said again somebody would come back to you so I didn't end up having a proper convo with this person. "It was a very horrible xperience for me" I was expecting for this person to actually tell me to come to the office but instead the said someon
would come back to me. It wasn't really helping. My friend saw me in a bad state and they referred me to Christian Concern (CC) and the Darlington Nurses (DN)
DH your friend?
JM yes and the DN because the RCN were not responding to me. I wanted to go to the office and get proper help from the RCN. I was very shaken and I had been moved to another dept. I said this is urgent.
DH but if we go to p1123 a letter from the RCN is sent. Two
pages signed off by an RCN letter. We see the first par thanks you – it then sets out the steps
JM yes because in this case I wasn't getting any response of coming into the office to discuss the issu I sent in my statement and the one i had written
DH if we look at
… the third par where options were discussed with you. you had a convo with an officer about your issues and discussion do you agree?
JM I don't accept that becase I remember when contacted the RCN the convo from the email was to write the statement and to refer to the
NMC code of conduct and teh advice of not putting in a grievance form. That's all I remember being told.
DH but here we see reference to the RCN seeking "urgent legal opinion" on 7 August – so the RCN was doing tha
JM but they didn't do nothing about it
DH there was other support confirmed to you on 7 Aug. Officer asked for sight of your draft grievance and they were going to look over that for you – do you accept that?
JM yes
DH and still on p1224 the officer confirms that following this disco the Officer said
he discussed, supporting advising and repping you throughout your case – so this was the RCN were confirming to you that this was the case
JM there was no action that was taken after that regardless of me receiving this document by email for help. They did not stand to their
words.
DH were you concerned at the point you received this letter
JM despite receiving this ltter I am not confident in the RCN
DH that was your view at the time
JM I read this letter but there was not action being taken – I waited a few weeks but I had no response as to the action which took place and whether I received help.
JM the most important help I need was to meet someone in the office and I had no confidence about how I was being treated in the beginning.
DH if we turn to p1227 – is that your email address at the top
JM yes
DH so this is an email from you on 9 Aug two days after the letter you were sent – you are telling the RCN that you have thought about writing the grievance letter – and that was one of the things – you look to be responding to the advice in the letter. And you say
you're not going to do a draft grievance letter as you want to wait. Then after that you said "thank you for guidance and support"
JM well believing that they would eventually support me… but after that nothing, no proper help from the RCN
DH but it doesn't say that
DH then you say looking forward to hearing from you thank the RCN and sign it off
DH there's nothing in here which suggests you had no confidence in the RCN
JM I was v traumatised at the time. I wjust wanted to put myself in a situation in need of your help. I need RCN to actually take this seriously and as a Christian I was praying carefully about this sit and I was advised not to put in a grievance from the RCN before.
DH but you didn't put that in the email. so you must accept there was no way of knowing you had such "deep seated concerns"
JM this email is seeking attn and showing appreciation for they work so they might say "let's help this lady and support me"
DH let's got to the urgent legal opinion from the RCN which was shared with you – p1228 a record of the email setn to you by the RCN officer (O) – see
what's in quotes there – the legal opinion was provided by email and copied and pasted into this email to you, wasn't it – it's quite a lengthy email and I appreciate you're not a lawyer and I'm not going to go into all of it, but the legal opinion comes down to…
… that the referral of your case is "premature" and needs to be re-referred "in due course"
JM [accepts the email exists and what it says, but disagrees with the diagnosis] "what do they mean by premature"
DH appreciate you might disagree with it but the reasoning is explained
JM just says that it was not serious and does not seem to be a serious case to them despite me baing at the verge of losing my career and my emotion and mental health state
DH the conclusion is stated early on in the email but there are at least 6 full pages after that conclusoin which sets out the anlysus that the ind has taken to reach their conc. There is a lot of reasoning
JM reaosoning that the case did not warrant to be looked at
… seriously as I was at risk of losing my registration.
DH at p1234 having set out varying part of an analysis or the third par – the legal advisor concluding at that stage "I do not consider a meritorious…" – they weren't saying "never" were they?
JM it wasn't "reflecting the urgency"
DH they already said they would provide you with workplace support
JM how would that help me? Someone who is being referred to the NMC after 12 years as a single mum. It didn't make sense to me… how is it going to help me? I was already being given a final warning by the trust. Having to undergo diff proceedings througout those times and just left with no support from the RCN "This is very insane"
DH one final point on p1234. it's the second last par which is above the heading "3rd party harassment" – if you look at the par about that do you see that?
JM see how traumatising this is for me. its punishing me even more putting me through this it is like a nightmare
for me of how the RCN is even like going from – not thinking of my… oh Jesus [JM is getting upset – she takes a second to compose herself]. They were even thinking of my wellbeing. My children were scared of losing their mum. and they are telling me to write a reflection…
… when I need their help. They didn write to my trust, they didn't call management, they didn't see the fact I had a final warning…
DH you get an email to the RCN on 21 august suggesting that you write a reflection if you feel able to – that email we see on p1239
JM req me to write a reflection – there was no further information. that is exactly what they needed I couldn't write a ref and go through that again.
DH you deal with the ref – being on annual leave and not wanting to do it just now – you don't raise concnerns.
JM I was in a dilemma – put yourself in my shoes – given a final wirtten warning on my report, being redeployed
J but you didn't raise those concerns – do you accept that?
DH you said at one point that no one wanted to hear about supporting you – you've said you were dis with the legal opinion but you were being supported
JM I wanted to speak to someone in the office and i was being ignored. I wanted to speak to someone in the office and when I tried to make an appt I was told they were on leave. I wanted them to see I was serious.
DH but you didn't say that at the time
JM "I don't believe what you are saying at the moment"
JM yes and this is about leave again – it said I am a colleage and RCN officer and I am taking over your case until return from leave
DH the officer is on leave it's being passed…
JM it's been passing on and passing on I never actually got to speak to someone who was assigned to me properly
DH reasonable if on leave
JM it has been an ongoing situation
DH the email of 5 Setpember – this officer is asking you for an update on your situation or to provide th O with dates the next week for a phone call
JM they are asking me for updates – I have to start all over again explaining the situation to someone new again
DH you don't respond to this
JM I felt ignore – because I spoke to many of teh RCN team and tehy saying someone is on leave. I was so frustrated and my friends could see that that's why the referred me to the DN and CC enecause at this point I am losing my mind. My union
rep was not there to support me and each time you casn see tht someone is on leave someone come and support you. I was in a sense wanting me to be punished for they didn't want in a a sense just left me in a limbo. They were promisng but there was no evidence.
DH I asked if you accept you did not respond to this email
JM no I must have called in response as I was fed up with exchanging emails and repeatedly being asked the same questions
DH you say you were referred to the DN union – when did you first make contact
[JM doesn't remember]
DH one final q – if we go to p1224 – this is the last page of 7 August letter… you've given some evidence today about the impact of matters in Aug 2024 about your mental health
the last par advises you on counselling and MH services and how you would go about accepting that.
JM in a sense RCN writing to me and ignoring the very matter why I needed help – that counselling wouldn't help me without the RCN being there in helping me
DH that's all my qs
J none from me NC?
NC no thank you
J okay that concs your evidence. you are welcome to stay but you must not discuss your evidence with anyone else
[10 minute comfort break before next witness]
[we're back – Bethany Hutchison BH has just been affirmed by the J]
NC good morning BH – pls confirm your full name
BH BH
NC you are one of the 7 DN's who won a claim against your employer – how many of you were RCN members?
BH 5 of us. Lisa Lockey was Unison and Karen Danson was Unison
NC did you approach RCN for help
BH yes – but we were told they wouldn't rep us because we'd already had discussions with other orgs
NC how far had those discos got
BH not very far.
NC did you have any RCN rep at work
BH if you could call it that we – had one meeting in may 2024 with HR and there was an RCN rep there and she just said she was in a listening role and tha's all she did
NC anything more after that?
BH no
NC did you get any help from other unions
BH Lisa was part of unison – she contact Unison and they did not respond – during our legal case "we found out that unison decided to represent the trans male. We were also subject to tweets which described us as transphobic bigots"
NC go to p953 – that's your letter to the general sec Prof Ranger written in your capacity as President of the DNU – if you look at p856 we see her response – it's been passed to a colleague who suggests a meeting
BH yes
NC what happened
BH from what I recall I had a meeting with Sarah Doddsworth from the RCN who is a regional director. "We explained our situation dealing with vulnerable women, women were having panic attacks pre and post work shift. We explained about a specific ind who is a survivor of sexual assualt and she was having particular ind who was changing in the changing room." SD was sympathetic and suggested sending out a survey and asaid she contact the chief nurse and req a copy of the transitioning in the workplace policy
NC can we go to p961 – that is the survey
BH yes
NC I didn't have any input into any of these qus I would not have asked them like that – I would have asked are you happy having a biological male in the F CR. I don't know why we needed a survey – I've already explained the sit
to her. But the survey got 6 responses and none raised the issue of biological males in the CRs
NC what did you learn from SD about the RCN's stance
BH that they didn't have a partic stance that's what she told me – there was no position on it
NC did she mention speaking to anyone else?
BH she did say she had discussed with her colleagues about single sex spaces and whether they would feel comfortable with a bio male using the facilities. From what I can recall she said the majority of the would not bei happy using the facilities with a bio male
NC did she disco with this anyone else
BH probably? I know she wanted to speak to [someone] and David Purdoe [?] about it, but I can't recall anyone else.
NC did you disco with her why more colleagues weren't coming forward
BH "I said there was an atmosphere of fear – peiple were fearful about activsim. People were fearful of being seen ask unkind. I explained it was the same reason the RCN won't put a statement out because people are fearful"
NC pls turn to p1120
NH who is this
BH I believe this is Rachel Ridley [a TIM] – somebody SD had spoke to or was going to speak to about the issue. I found this alarming given this is an issue which fundamentally impacts biological women
NC what did SD want to speak to RR about
BH to see what he did in the changing room
NC what did you take from SD –
BH that she was generally sympathetic
NC SD wrote a letter on your behalf – then you had another meeting
BH yes she told me she had been talking to Andrew
Thacker and that she had highlighted the 1992 workplace regs. Then our case was adjoutned and following the adjournment "the v next day the Trust issued new transitioning in the workplace guidelines which doubled down on allowing men to use the women's changing room"
NC p965
BH I highlighted this to SD and she said she would write an open letter hghlighting this concern for all to see. That's all I can recall.
NC is that the letter on p965
BH yes
NC what happened
BH we shared it with the media. We did this because it was the first glimmer of anybody througout the whole ordeal who had shown us any glimmer of hope or had listened to us or wanted to help us and it was a sign to the public that there was a trust in Darlington that wasn't complying with the law.
NC you had another meeting after that
BH yes "it was slightly unpleasant to begin with. Sarah was quite upset and basically I got a telling off for sharing the letter with the media. From what Sarah said to me it sounded like she had been reprimanded within the RCN". I felt concerned that she hadn't been able to attend congress as she had been on sick leave and I wandered if it was to do with this. "She told me she RCN had thought she had shared it with the media dn theat the comms department were furious because they weren't prepared for something like that to be shared with the media"
NC by this time there had been RCN engagement sessions on the Supreme Court ruling
BH yes she said the majority of people within the RCN were for the ruling and there was a small minotity who weren't and they had to be cautious about how the presented themslves because there were people from all walks of life
NC who had to be cautious
BH the RCN had to be cautious
NC who
BH GC people had to be cautious
NC why
BH I've touched on this already – people were afraid of trans activists
NC and you wrote to the RCN about them flying the progress flag above their building – why
BH not appropriate
NC did you get a response
BH no
NC have the RCN flown any other flag above their buildings?
BH don't know
BH proceedings from the NMC – a number of things – a number of complaints one specific one would be about misgendering
NC is RCN repping you in those proceedings
BH no I became completely disillusioned with the RCN. SD said she would reach out after the Sandie Peggie [first] tribunal. She did not. "I think they have abandoned their members, particularly their female members."
NC no further qs
DH I have very few qs for you – in respect of the NMC proceedings – thos were referred to the NMC by your employing trust?
BH no – the public put in referrals
DH right, i see.
DH I think my understanding is that one of the features in respect of Rose Henderson [the TIM nurse] in the CR in your hosptial concerned… there was the fact of their presence and some concerns about the way RH was conducting themselves towards other nurses
– there was also the notion of certain advances being made towards certain individuals
BH comments, yes
DH nfq
J none from me
NC no re-ex
J do you want lunch?
DH if that's convenient
J yes we wil resume at 1.4pm
[court rises]
[we're back]
NC just before we start the next witness – Mr Hay has indicated his evidence in chief examination is likely to be less than his estimate and mine is likely to be more. I hope that's okay
J yes
J now Mr Fraser – affirmation or oath
SF affirmation
[he is affirmed]
DH tell the tribunal your full name
SF Stuart Phelp Fraser
DH and you are engaged by the RCN as an Officer (O)
SF Yes
DH where are you based
SF Edinburgh but predominately work from home
DH how long
SF 5 but 5 years before that as an admin in the patch team
DH are you a nurse?
SF no I'm not a nurse
DH background
SF customer services and customer training in facilitation
DH we've heard RCN in Scotland being divided into 4 patches – which is yours
SF Fife, Forth Valley Tayside and [?]
DH manager
SF Gillian Tait (GT)
DH and there are 4 officers at your level who report into GT –
SF one senior officer and 3 full time officer
DH and local reps beneath that providing help at the coal face
SF yeah they're employed by the health board helping RCN members
DH Norman Provan (NP) told us about RCN Direct (RCND) which is a contact centre for members
SF [agrees]
DH and RCND can provide all assistance needed, sometimes its referred on to local reps and O's
SF [agrees]
DH it's not disputed you came into contact with Ms Sandie Peggie (SP)
SF correct
DH how
SF an enquiry came to the office whilst we were closed for Christmas 23 into 24 and I had a message to call SP in the first instance
DH turn to p319 – do you recognise this doc
SF this is a case summary from the call that SP would have had with RCND
DH when you returned to work after xmas/ny break – would you have seen this doc or would you have got it in another way
SF on an electronic case management system
DH is that on p324/5
SF yes
DH you were asked to make a call to SP – why
SF from the info SP had been suspended pending an investigation and our job was to find out more information
DH under "further notes" 8 Jan – some typed notes – are these your notes
SF yeah they're my notes
DH when did you speak with SP
SF I've tried to recall this info – think it was scheduled for 4.30pm 5 Jan, but can't recall if it was Fri 5th or didn't get her that day and called on Monday 8th
DH how soon after the call with SP did you make these notes
SF I try to do them as
I'm going along.
DH is this a typical call you have with members?
SF yes
DH do you have a partic approach
SF get them to tell me what happened in their words – sometimes when they speak to RCND it isn't accurate or relevant, but on this occasion it was pretty accurate
DH how good is your recollection now of the call you had with SP
SF it's relatively in line with the notes – we may have disco'd things in more detail but I could not say for certain
DH how long did the call last
SF 30 – 40 mins, roughly
DH is that fairly typical for a call of that sort
SF most calls are scheduled for 30 mins – it's unusual to fall either side
DH can we go to these notes:
"Case summary
Member has been suspended pending investigation.
Member was informed by a phone call from charge nurse earlier today
Colleague made a complaint about member.
Complaint was made by a Doctor who works alongside member.
The DR is transgender
Member complained that she didn't feel with the DR being in female changing rooms
Member made this complaint directly to the DR themselves.
Doctor advised member that were procedures she could follow if she had a complaint.
Datix has been submitted by the DR
Member has been suspended pending investigation.
Member has also previously discussed her concerns with charge nurse
CN said they will raise this with equality and diversity lead for Support but member never heard anything back"
DH there are various things – do you have a general approach to this
SF yeah the process of investigation can be lengthy from my experience specifically with NHS Fife – it is not unusual for them to take 4 to 6 weeks to put together an investigation team depending on how many people they are investigating and how many witnesess they need to speak to. I can take sveral months and the Once for All policy means the person who is investigated get to see all of that so I would have taken SP through that.
DH when SP told you why did you conclude the man in a woman'e prison comment might be why she was suspended
SF remember the case being high profile – think it was a reference to Isla Bryson and the ind in that case was a convicted rapist and from my recollection I remember saying
something along the lines I had seen it on the news.
DH do you recollect SP saying anything about holding any beleifs or partic set of beliefs
SF no I mean she said in regards to that specific case that she felt a man shouldn't be in the women's changing rooms. My understanding at the time was there was no policy in place specific to NHS but guidance from the EHRC and the EA wouldn't have stopped Dr Upton from being in there. I think we spoke about that SP had raised concerns previously and I wanted to explore that more in the cours e of the investigation about what habeen reported and what had been actions
DH from the call with SP what understanding did you have of a the sort of support she was looking for from you or the RCN
SF support with representation through the process of the investigation
DH do you recollect any ref of the views that might be called GC or sex realist
SF not in those words. no Again the only think now in hindsight that I could say to that to was in ref to the IB case.
DH did you understnad SF wanted anything more that rep in the workplace
SF not to my knowledge – no
DH can we go to p323/4 – a letter from the PA Donna McComb. So she's a Patch Administrator – not a PA. The destination of the email to SP in the "To" line of the email is just a number and that's the same as teh case reference number – so certainly on reading it – that's not an
email – was this doc sent to an email address and not just a number.
SF when we generate a case it's assigned a number 3038606 and the contact details are added to it. It then takes the email address out of the contact information – the number would be assigned to the primary
email address chosen by the member
DH so when we got to p325 we see the same reference number in the top banners up toward the left had side in smaller type we see that number as case ref
SF yes
DH so looking at the email and seeing the email address as just a number
does that cause you any concern
SF no because I'd be able to go into the case management system and see what email address its associated with
DH there is a suggestion SP did not receive this email – looking at it would that be a concern for you – that it would not be obvious from looking at the destination box
SF no because we have knowledge of how the system works.
DH the next contact you had with SP was on 5 Feb and that was the email on p330 of the bundle.
SF yes
DH and ew know that SP came to instruct sols – MG – can you remind us when you became aware SP had legal rep?
SF on the following page – p331 – NP had forwarded me an email from MG and asked me to forward the Once For All policies
DH so that is on 13 Feb
SF yes
DH we know NO asked you to send MG some policies and you did that
SF yes I forwawrded them on the same day or the following day
DH then there was a suspension review meeting which took place on 7 March
SF yes at QM hospital in Dunfermline
DH did you discuss anything before with SP
SF yes we met beforehand and chatted as we walked along to the meeting room then had a debrief in the car park after
DH by 7 March how much contact had you had with SP – SF just that initial phone call and a couple of emails
DH when you spoke with SP on 7 March to what extent if at all did you understand SP to be raising any concerns she had about the level or extent of support the RCN was providing at that stage
SF I don't recall her raising any concerns in regard to the representation. The interactions with SP were quite cordial and professional.
DG was there a suggestion she was expecting to receive any kind of legal spoirt or representation
SF I recall having a convo. I can't be specifically about what meeting it was. I think it was 7 March we had had a disco as there had it come up in the inv about some concerns around patient care. I told her I wasn't the budget holder for that and that she would have to raise it with the RCN about seeking rep
DH who raised that
SF I did
DH had SP asked you about looking for legal rep
SF no
DH how good is your recollection about when that took place?
SF 80% I would say – recall it being in the QM car park so it could only be on the 7 March as there weren't any other meeting as QM.
DH did SP react to your comment about your preliminary view about what legal rep might be avail
SF my recollection is that she was happy about it being taken forward by MG
DH I've been asking you about the before and after of the meeting. From SP's side who was doing most of the talking in the meeting.
SF Charlotte Myles was the NHS manager who had a number of qs for SP which I would not have been able to answer. so the qs were posed to SP
DH we have your notes on p353 to 354 – do you recollect what SP said in the meeting – was she expressing GC or SR views in the meeting?
SF yes
DH which were
SF SP believed that DU was a bio male and didn't believe that as he was male and his presence was that of a male figure he shou;dn't have been in the F CR and went into quite some detail about what her concerns were
DH was the phrase Gender Critical or SR used by SP in that meeting
SF not specifically
J you don't remember or it wasn't used
SF don't remember sorry – at a later meeting at the investigation meeting that language was used.
DH yes
DH did you have any diff repping SP with regard to the views she was expressing re trans people
SF no
DH at 7 March was any sugg from SP that SP was feeling unsupported by you or the RCN.
SF no
DH did she ever say that to you in terms
SF no every interaction was pleasant
DH you did not make any request for legal rep on SP's behalf. Why not?
SF I suppose at that stage we were
waiting for info. When you're trying to understand what happened there are "often two sides to every story and at that stage I hadn't seen the suspension documentation, any witness statements to allow me to form a viewon what the suspension was for". I expected from SP had told me that it was to do with that but I wasn't sure how DU had presented that and obvs we would get a chance to see that doc and respond to that.
DH asking you some qs around exploring legal advice andI had been asking you about your concerns with SP direct – we know you had contact with MG around that time and thereafter at the inv progressed. Thinking about the comms with MG do you have any recollection pre Dec 2024. Did you get any sense from your inteactions with MG that SP was looing for RCN legal rep
DH there has been some evidence in this case around the seriousness you were taking SP casease and supporting SP thought that process and they were going to be launching an ET
DH there has been some vidence in this case around the seriousness you were taking SP case
SF as serious as I would take any other case. I definitely agreed with her that the health board hadn't adequately dealt with her concerns. My understand was that she'd raised it several times and that was confirmed in the meeting in March that SP had reported it and she had concerns over DU using that changing room and nothing had been done. I think that was a faulure on the board's part to address SP's concerns
DH any recollection of you suggesting SP should treat her suspension as a holiday
SF "not those specific words. I understand when people are suspended it can be a stressful time and I have used language in the past where peple have been off for months, 18 months it the longest and other members have used their time to volunteer so I have started suggesting things they might want to do"
[we onto the req for legal support for the 2nd ET claim proposed by SP and MG against NHS Fife]
DH you took this to NP why
SF NHS Fife had added this charge of "misgendering" and I think this was a valid case of victimisation
DH on 8 Jan 2025 you suggested to SP a chat
DH that was arranged for 10 Jan 2025. Did that happen?
SF we spoke about how legal process works – told SP I'd sent it to NP and how our legal process goes through him first and ordinarily it would then go to Andersen Strathern (AS) and it was because MG asked me for forms for
SP to fill out but we don't have forms for members who are seeking legal action.
DH we see an email from NP to you on 17 Jan where he decides to refuse to provide legal assistance to NP and some reasoning for it. Before 17 Jan did you talk to him
SF yes at an AS training day
and NP referred to a case he'd worked on where in a previous case he'd had this additional issue and they'd decided to add it to the first tribunal rather than running another one
DH and it fell to you to convey that decision to MG on 20 Jan
SF yes
DH and there a file note on p410 prepared by MG of that conversation [MG is Margaret Gribbon – SP's solicitor (sol)] – is that accurate
SF yes
SF I left it with MG I would forward NP's decision email to SP directly which I think I did
DH if we turn to p408 – you forward this email on 20 Jan the email you got from NP on 17 Jan
SF yes
DH and you got that after you got off the call with MG
SF yes
DH think we can see from the terms of the file note that MG was not enthusiastic about the decision reached by the RCN about the provision of legal services – how much more involvement did you have with SP after 20 Jan call
SF don't think I spoke to SP again after that
SF may have been some discos with MG about disc hearing and whether I might be able to provide representation
DH did you
SF no I think by the time the disc hearing came round I was off sick and I offered to help ensure she was repped
DH when were you sick
SF April/May 2025 – til
August 2025
DH and Gillian Tait your supervisor took over the case
SF yes as senior officer GT was overseeing my cases in my absence
DH no further qs
[short break before cross-examination by a visibly poorly NC]
[NC has requested the temp in the room to be lowered. SF is warm too. J warns it might get very cold. Court rises]
This is the current witness – Stuart Fraser
And here is a photo of Jennifer Melle, and Bethany Hutchison hugging Sandie Peggie outside court this morning
Sandie Peggie – who has been in court all day listening to proceedings.
Photos by @iain_masterton – do contact him directly if you want to use these shots.
Iain's work has been invaluable to me during this case. It means I don't have to hang around outside court getting photos – I can instead use my non court sitting time to dig into the bundle which has thrown up a few interesting notes this lunchtime. More in my report
this evening on genderblog.net
[okay we're back]
NC being a ful time O at RCN is a responsible and quite skilled role and you would presumably be expected to take training on employment law
SF yes
NC you are not a lawyer, but you have an understanding of EL to help your members
SF yes
NC to support your members
SF yes
NC so you'd know a bit more than the people who consult with you
SF yes
NC they may be being bullied, dispute over pay, unsafe practises, holidays book, shift work v childcare, reg or misconduct proceedings
SF yes
NC how you advise them and what you do for them depends on the sit they are in
SF yes
NC being bullied a grievance
SF yes
NC resigning might be advice on constructive dismissal
SF yes
NC disc or unauthorised deductions from pay. an ET
SF yes
NC pretty urgent cos of time limits
SF three months minus a day
NC so you need to crack on to get a merits assessment
SF yes
NC so let's say you've got someone who has concerns about infection control on her ward and she is being investigated on trumped up charges – likely detriment
SF possibly – I'd like to know more
NC but on that bald story – she's drawing a causal link – this is exactly the sort of thing you'd need to go to lawyers for a merits assessment
SF potentially yes
NC putting aside TG – if you hear a story from a nurse saying there's a man going into the women's changing rooms and she's suspended when she complains…
NC that would be a potential claim under EA – looks like harassment doesn't it
SF if we're talking about this case
NC we're not – it's just a man – there is a man – he doesn't say anything and no one raises that q –
SF yes I'd probably look for a legal view – its difficult
SF because it's hypothetical – I take your point. I understand what you are saying – there would be steps taken to understand what happened
NC yes you'd need to get more detail etc, but you'd need to get a move on because of the 3 month rule.
SG not nec – we have lodged a claim with days to go to protect a member whilst we get an assessment…
NC but in any event you'd need to get a move on
[SF generally takes her point]
NC I'm going to ask you about training and background knowledge – what do you understand about Forstater 2021
SF Forstater had taken action against her uni?
NC a think tank
SF and it was found her beliefs were protected in the same way race and religion were protected – a philosophical belief basically
NC had you had specific training on this
SF yes during our quarterly training with AS
NC is that all you can remember on Forstater –
SF off the top of my head on the spot yes, sorry
NC can we go to p1021/2 this is from the RCN mag – legal update – GC views and belief protection – that the sort of thing you read?
SF yes
NC does this look familiar
SF now I'm looking at it
NC do those pages represent your understand of Forstater
SF when was it published
NC Sep 2021
NC was this the level of undrrstanding you had on the subject by Jan 2024
SF yes
NC it says [NC reads – I'll get the full text after the hearing] – it's a pretty grudging minimising reading of Forstater which places the emphasis on the ongoing protections for Trans people
not those with GC views.
SF can you ask that again
NC "this is a reading of the judgment in those two pages whose main if not sole emphasis is that this doesn't mean that this does anything bad to the protection of trans people. As opposed to this is a powerful tool you can use to protect those with GC beliefs"
SF I see what you are saying. It would be diff to summarise F in two pages but I can see the point your making
NC a fairer short summary would be this is an important decision that demonstrates the power of the EA to pretect people with beliefs their colleagues might not like
SF potentially yeah
NC a powerful tool to protect those members with those beliefs
SF that would be one way of looking at it but I ink the ussues is a bit more complex – what it was making ref to with bio sex and gender iD when that wasn't so clear at the time of the case
NC if we think about the dispute which is quite bitterly conentious between two sidse of the debate – the GI and GC side the are two sides to the debate and they are engaged in F
SF yes
NC F says the GC side has powerful protection which people didn't understand they had – that's the big news isn't it
SF I think they were always protected under the EA
NC I'm not sguggesting they weren't before, but lots of people didn't know that
SF yeah I would concede you most like have more knowl of this than I do
NC doesn't mkae it look like big news makes it look like something that is a bit worrisome that might be feared to diminish the rights of trans people
NC and the passage here [she reads about Nazis] – the framing here makes GC or SR believs look eccentric and only a shade less toxic than Nazism
SG that's how your read it. .
NC goes to p780 and draws comparison in RCN magazine which has legal analysis of Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover in the mag RCN is presenting a first instance tribunal as widening protections for trans and non-binary people and its almost dismissive treatment of the binding F judgment
SF I don't think sex realists… I see what you're saying but I don't agree with the assumption.
NC turn to p294 for date – Dec 2024 and content on p 285 – this deliberately muddles the concept of gender and sex – says sex is the language used in the EA but gender is used here because its more inclusive. Says
all genders and sexes can experience discrimination
NC quite odd to be talking about this – in this way – confusing the language
SF it was yes
NC and here there is an attempt to change the law – suggesting gender reassignment (protected in law) should be called gender identity because it's more inclusive. Gender ID is not
protected in law is it
[SF gets confused asks NC to ask q again]
NC saying GI is the more inclusive term is misstating the law
[goes to a role play in the same doc]
NC there is an assumption here that misgendering someone is bad
[agrees]
[NC goes to another scenario – p290…
… on religion and belief]
NC just ignores philosophical belief – just talks about religion or lack of religion
SF doesn't appear there
NC on p292 – seems to think philosophical belief protection is unique to NI
SF yes
NC wrong isn't it
SF yes
NC GC beliefs are not a
high priority for the RCN
SF nothing in this doc about GC beliefs but can't speak for RCN
NC yes and the RCN did not equip you to give you the advice that SP needed
SF I would disagree with that but there's no specific ref to SR views in these docs
NC let's go back to p320
NC so SP told you the story you outlined here and you recorded in last 4 lines – disco'd with member this could be seen this was disc – you though the disc was SP objecting to a male in the women's changing room
SF "no it was the this is "like having a man in a women's prison" which could be seen to be likening DU to a rapist which IB was and on that basis and again I didn't know how that had been reported by DU to lead to the suspension… I understand what SP said and her discomfort but I didn't know what had led to her suspension"
NC and the disc you were thinking of was GR disc, wasn't it
SF I probably shouldn't have said disc, but yes on reflection it was
NC but you were comparing the disc between a trans woman and a non trans woman – that was the discrimination
SF yes
NC and any other disc would have been recorded here
SF yes
NC so it was clear you didn't think SP had suffered disc as a result of a man using the women's changing room
SF there was no policy in place – my understanding was that TW could use the CR they ID'd with
NC and that was a policy RCN had no prob with
SF not to my knowledge no
NC and it didn't occur to you that SP's suspension might be a result of victimisation
SF at the time I could only surmise that the suspension would be on the basis of further conduct and how teh discussion went
NC so its it fair to say its obvious from your note that you were approaching this as a case that a member had been accused of wrongoind and that was the nature of the dispute
SF I was look for it as… the Once for Scotland sets t out as before determin any investigation having spoke to SP I could understand why she felt distress and I don't believe her intetn was to inflame the situation. It was very much she felt uncomfortable and she felt let down ber her employer but against how that had been relayed to the inds – I had to wait to see how that unfolded.
SF my job is to present the case for the member depneding on what they had advised to me what had happened
NC it was put to SP by DH that she hadn't mentioned her GC or SR views, but it was unlikely she would know about GC things unless she'd been forced to think about. She does didn't want to change in front of a man.
SF there could be lots of reasons why someone wouldn't want to change in front of another member of staff for a myriad of reasons
NC not very easy to think of acceptable reasons
SF I would disagree
NC what examples
SF scars, body image
NC that's not changing in front of anyone – when would be it be acceptable to say I don't mind changing in front of my own sex, but not them
SF might be personal history
NC it wasn't for SP to talk to you about GC views – it was your job to raise issues about disc related to sex or a protected belief
NC the only thing I could pin on why was SP talking about relation to the IB case
SF it wasn't apparent to me that was specifically what SP was saying – she had reported concerns, she hadn't had any appropriate feedback on those concerns and that's what I wanted to iv further
NC we agreed that the disc you were thinking of was GR and that involved thinking that DU was a kind of woman.
SF I believe DU thinks hes a woman
NC no doubt, but there's an alternative view out there. That DU is not a kind of woman, but a kind of man.
SF my understanding…
… is that GC/SR side is that sex is immutable and cannot be changed. The other is that sex is about gender ID
NC the GI analysis would be that DU is a kind of woman so SP has treated him diff because he is a TW and the GC analysis would go – he's man being treted diff because he's a man.
SF yes
NC but the law is clear – DU is a man
SF under the EA, yes the protections refer to bio sex at birth
NC and. you failed to advise SP on potential discrim claims she had because the prevailing culture was GI and required you to approach it from that perspective
SF I needed more info before getting legal advice after this one call
NC the GI position is that TWAW and the GC position is TWAM
SF yes
NC and the RCN's position is that TWAW
SF don't think RCN has a position
NC does it have a private position
SF don't think so
NC it hasn't been made policy – it's just been quietly adopted
SF don't think so
[takes SF to where SF recorded DU's pronouns in his contact call to call DU she/her]
NC SP called DU a man you edited her pronouns
SF yes
NC yet her objection to DU was due to her GC beliefs that he was man even though she didn't artic it at the time
SF if you say so
NC but you in your use of pronouns was you treating DU as a woman
SF wasn't treating DU as anything –
NC hmm. GI has got its hooks into things so deeply that you knew – even subconsciously that it would be unacceptable for you to even report SP's correct speech
SF I don't know there are spelling mistakes all over this
NC you're not trying to tell me that you misreporting SP's language was a slip of the finger
SF I don't know – I honestly didn't think about it too much
NC you handled the call with SP as if she were the aggressor
and DU was the victim
SF no I thought SP was the victim – she'd raised this problem and had no response and I wanted to help her
NC but there's no indication from you – that hang on what is a man doing in the F CR
SF but my understanding is that DU was a TW and under
the guidance she had a right to be in the CR
[NC query]
SF that wasn't based on RCN policy but EHCR guidance
NC and that's one of the vectors by which it got into the RCN? Actually that's maybe not a q for you
On p324 its pointed out to you that the decision to allow DU into the F CR
was without risk assessment, impact assessment or consultation
SF yes
NC and the lack of any consultation was surely the sort of high handed behaviour which any union worth its salt would be up in arms
SF I don't think we would do a consultation about one person
NC it's not about one person though is it -it's about all female staff who have a right to privacy dignity and safety
SF I don't think all TG people are a risk
NC okay – focus on privacy and dignity – do women have a right not to get changed in front of men
SF I think anybody should say they don't want to get changed in front of anyone
NC so you don't see the point of female changing rooms or toilets?
SF no i see why they exist
NC there was a man using the female changing room and RCN wasn't outraged
SF at the time it was believed he was entitled to
NC so when MG said to you on 13 Feb that this throws up wider policy issues – mentioning the lack of consultation on the policy
SF not for me now
as I"m not involved in SWAG
NC didn't occur to you to talk to SP's colleagues, have some private chats about how they felt about DU in the F CR.
SF no I didn't do that.
NC can we go to p358 pls
J are you still going to be another hour
NC yes
J I think we will have a pause then
J as there's potentially re-ex etc so we'll stop there.
[tells SF not to talk about his evidence and that he will resume still under oath tomorrow and that proceedings will commence at 10am tomorrow]
[right I'm going to dig that RCN advice thing out of the bundle…
… then go and write all this up. Thanks for reading. If you want to get the report first ahead of everyone else via email and the exclusive subscriber-only newsletter, please consider a small donation:
genderblog.net/donate/]
